🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <74ojh4$9n2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, in which a
one st...@dds.nl wrote:
> In article <uhHb2.1898$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
>   tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:
> 
> > Damn News XPress...  I had a really good response the first time, I don't
> > know if this will match it.
> 
> Gotta hate it when that happens.

Yeah, I think I pretty much got it back word for word though.  For some parts 
at least.

> > > Why should you make such a big deal about drugs?
> > I wish these statistics were taken.  Look at the percentage of married
>  couples
> > that had an incident with a kitchen knife and look at the percentage of drug
> > users that had an incident with death. That's why.
> 
> That's not the point though.  It's not about how many people die, it's the
> fact that people die, period.  Can you tell me what an acceptable amount of
> deaths is?  1%?  5%?  10%?  From what you've said in the past you seem to
> value even one life - if that is so then how can you say drugs are any
> different from kitchen knives?  Both have caused at least one death,
> therefore both are dangerous and should not be allowed.  You do want to
> minimize death, right?

Knives are meant to be used to cut things.  Drugs are meant to hurt, and kill. 
Even if the user is taking them to 'get away from it all,' he is still hurt 
and if he continues to use them he will be killed.

> > > 1) Brain damage doesn't "hurt" you
> > I beg to differ.
> 
> Bilogically speaking, yes it hurts you.  Do you as a person notice it?  Not
> unless you've had a ridiculous amount which is fair more easily attainable by
> becoming a boxer than a drug taker.

There are more drug users than boxers though.  I would never in my life do 
something like become an amateur/proffesional boxer.  Most people here 
wouldn't.  Drugs, however, are becoming such a big problem and are causing 
more and more problems for people.

> > > 2) Becoming addicted doesn't "hurt" you (assuming it even happens in the
> first
> > > place)
> > It does hurt financially,
> 
> Financial "hurt" doesn't exist.  If someone has no money, they have no money.
>  I have no money.  It sucks.  Does it hurt?  No.  I deal with it.

If someone has money, then spends it all on drugs and has to move out of his 
house and live on the street, it hurts them.

> > as well as stretching the negative effects of drugs
> > and making them worse.
> 
> Yes it does, but does it *hurt*?  

Not in the sense of "Ow, my arm.  But iit's a *good* kind of hurt."  But in 
the sense of them being hurt in the long run.  And I don't mean 35 years from 
now, "Ow, my arm."

> It doesn't really hurt the user, they're usually quite happy to be addicted.

For the time being.  Look at the 45-year-old people with emphyzema who are 
suing the tobacco companies.  Yeah, these people are idiots.  They shouldn't 
have started smoking in the first place.  It's like slitting your throat with 
a knife, "I think I'll try it."  Half a second later, "Oh, can't stop now."  
Another half a second later, "Wait, wait!  I'll sue the people that made this 
knife!" and they drop dead.

Such painful situations wouldn't even exist in a world without cigarettes, 
alcohol, and drugs.

> And if they're not happy, than they can quit.

You think you could quit?  You who admit that taking drugs and causing 
yourself brain damage (which is evident in some parts of your posts :P) is 
becoming routine, like eating Corn Flakes for breakfast?

> If they're in too deep to quit then they can get support from an
> AA-type place, 

It's not that simple.

> or they die.  

Which could have been prevented if there were no drugs in the first place.  
I'm not just talking about one life, either.

> Either way they knew what they were getting themselves into, and if you
> choose to do something yourself it can never really hurt in the same way
> as if it was inflicted upon you unwillingly.

Oh yeah?  Sometimes it hurts even worse.  "There's no problem so big that a 
little guilt can't make worse."  (That was paraphrased from Calvin, from 
Calvin and Hobbes.)
 
> > > > > > How about "I wanna do drugs cuz I'm not sposed to"?
> > > > > But wouldn't legalization defeat that reason altogether?
> > > > Not if there was a house or family rule against it.  It would just make
> > > > breaking the rules easier.
> > > Why should there be a house or family rule which overrides a national law?
> > Because, "You live in my house, you live by my rules."  If the parent and/or
> > guardian says "Even though you *could* get your license now, I'm gonna make
> > you wait until you're 18 for safety reasons," then that's that.  The
> > house/family rule overrides the national or state law.
> >
> Theoretically the kid could take the parents to court for that, couldn't they?

That would be fucked up.  And theoretically you can take anyone to court for 
anything.  But the house rule has to override the law.

> I don't know, i've had a pretty liberal upbringing, so...

Yeah, I can see what it's done to you.

> > > What abortion issue?
> > The pro-life/pro-choice issue.
> 
> I was being silly.

Kinda hard to say...  there's pretty much no more smileys and the argument is 
getting more serious than when it started out.  
 
> > > All issues can be resolved in one of two ways - conservative or liberal.
> > > And humankind did not advance to the point it has through conservatism.
> > Odd, for someone who considered themselves conservative last time they
>  posted.
> 
> Ah okay.  There's a difference between conservative vs liberal and
> conservative vs extravagant.  The word can mean two different things, it
> probably wasn't a particularly good choice, but there you go.

=\  

> > Anywho, everything in moderation.  I'll take your word for it that we
> > 'advanced' to this point through liberalism, going any further would really
>  be
> > a step backwards.
> 
> I don't think so.  Conservatism is necessary because humans need time to
> adjust to the current level before continuing, but i don't think an
> indefinite conservatism is a Good Thing for us at all.

If EVERYONE were liberal, eventually nothing would be legal and everything 
would turn to chaos.  

By the way, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

> > It does matter.  Their families and friends shouldn't have to suffer
> > unnecessarily (sp?) because of drugs.
> 
> No they shouldn't, so the families and friends should quit suffering
> unnecessarily.

It's not like that at all.  They don't suffer because they choose.  After all 
this crap I heard about how gay people don't choose to e gay...  

> > Plus, I'm Christian, and it's not right to let them spend an
> > eternity in Hell either.
> 
> I thought if someone sinned to a certain point they deserved to spend an
> eternity in Hell?  If someone commits suicide they deserve what they're
> getting, so it's not really an argument.

That's why they shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide - to save them from an 
eternity in Hell.

> > > > It's a choice they shouldn't be allowed to make.
> > > That's dangerously close to a fascist comment.
> > No, it's true.  Even you must admit that some choices just shouldn't be
>  made.
> 
> Let's see.  Having to choose between all my CDs which is my favorite - that's
> a choice which shouldn't be made ;)  But seriously - i think if someone makes
> a choice to do something which is only going to affect their own wellbeing,
> they should be allowed to do so.

What about killing someone else?  That's a choice that shouldn't be made.  
People shouldn't be allowed to choose to kill people.  Suicide is just another 
choice that fits that category.

> > > Yes.  It would.  It would also be more responsible, more commonplace, more
> of
> > > a social thing than a full-on binge.
> >
> > And this is a Bad Thing.  Grief and death would also be more commonplace.
> >
> I don't think it would, but even if it was i don't think that would be a
> particualrly Bad Thing.  In the Western world we are really a bit too
> desensitized to grief and death, maybe some reality would wake people up.

"Maybe."  It's not worth the risk.
 
> > > Maybe Americans being "as simple minded as they are" is a RESULT of all
>  the
> > > cultural taboos drilled into them?
> > No.  Some people just want to learn for themselves that they're doing a dumb
> > thing, when it's better to just prevent the mistake from being made in the
> > first place.
> >
> Ever heard these ones?  "The best way to learn is by experience" and "survival
> of the fittest".


If EVERYONE except you commited suicide, then would you still say that suicide 
was a valid choice?  Or would you see then what a mistake it was and how it 
affected the whole human race?

> > There's a difference between not doing something you supposed to, and doing
> > something you're not supposed to.
> 
> Now that was a line worthy of Jerry Springer ;)  Still, who says you're
> "supposed" to not eat meat?  

Whoever said that, don't listen to 'em.  Eatnig meat is fine.

> Who says you're "supposed" to not drive your car above 50mph?  Who says
> you're NOT "supposed" to take drugs?  

The government, for safety reasons.

> You do realize some drugs just grow in the ground and it's just a case of
> picking them and eating them, same as any fruit or vegetable?

Of course, usually in a mushroom or grass form.  But eating apples and oranges 
won't change you the way drugs do.

> > There's also a difference between a risk of something bad happening and
> > something bad actually happening.  Smoking one cigarette *will* dirty your
> > lungs, going 5 or 10 mph past the speed limit is barely a risk.
> 
> But along the same lines taking LSD *will not* affect your body in any way
> after a few days, 

It will in the long run.

> whereas eating peanuts *will* start a cadmium buildup in your body which can
> never be broken down.  Where can you draw the line?

Oh, didn't know that.  Well candy and cookies will rot your teeth too.  But 
not make you die.
 
> > > > So we don't need any more because of drugs.
> > > Hundreds of thousands plus hundreds is still "hundreds of thousands". 
>  It's
> > > not significant.
> > But life *is* significant.
> >
> Life in and of itself certainly is.  300,100 lives versus 300,000 lives isn't.

But it's not worth it, just so the current drug users get a certain 
status of legitamacy and can relax more.  And, over the years, it would be 
much more than just 100 lives that are lost.

> > > anyone to take the garbage out".  But they choose to be sad.
> >                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This is the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> I knew you'd say that.  Because someone else said it to me too when i
> mentioned virtually the same thing.  Somewhere inside, something chooses to
> be sad.  It isn't just a chemical reaction - not like someone dies and
> suddenly we're sad. For example, imagine that a good friend of yours died but
> you didn't know.  An exact replica of him was put in his place and you lived
> the rest of your life not knowing any better.  You wouldn't be sad because
> you wouldn't have lost anything.

I wouldn't be sad because I wouldn't know.  If everyone else wasn't ignoring 
our thread, I'm sure I'd have a little backup here so I could get a better 
reply to this :)  

> A person does not become sad because a friend dies, a person becomes sad
> because they feel they've lost something now that their friend is gone. 
> There is a difference.  If you've lost something it's your choice what to do
> about it - accept it, find something else to replace it, get pissed off about
> losing it, or just get sad, whatever.  The person who grieves does so because
> THEY are missing something, not because something is missing.  Subtle
> difference, but it means they're being just as egotistical as the suicide
> committer.

I really think you're wrong.  I think they are sad because the person is gone, 
not just from their lives.  That's why there can be no replacement.

> This is not a Bad Thing, but people do have to understand that
> their sadness is not a reaction to death per se.
> 
> > I don't think you chose not to feel sad, I think you just ignored your true
> > feelings and put them aside and drowned your troubles in drugs.  Just my two
> > cents.
> 
> "Drowned [my] troubles in drugs"!?  You've got to be joking.  If there's one
> thing i'd never do, it's get high to make me feel better, because it's only
> liable to make me feel worse.  If you feel like shit and take drugs, you're
> just going to feel even more like shit.  Ask Gumbo ;)

Another reason why people shouldn't be taking drugs!  It just makes em feel 
worse.  Again, apples and oranges won't do that to you.

> > > We don't *need* it.  We need it at the moment because there are killers
>  and
> > > the like.  When there aren't any, we won't need it.
> > This is never going to happen.  Not unless we give everyone a lobotomy or do
> > some other commie shit.
> >
> It could happen.  Don't you think it's worth working towards?

It can't happen, no one's perfect and no one's ever going to be perfect.

> > > We need to build toward that.
> > People aren't going to change.  If we instead built towards removing drugs
>  and
> > alcohol and cigarettes we would have a much better place.
> >
> The thing is, you're looking at this from a physical point of view, but i
> believe it's a far more deep-seated psychological and cultural thing.  People
> can and do change, but they need to make alot of effort.  Taking away some
> physical things is only going to halt the tide - something else will arrive in
> the future which will have just the same effect because people still haven't
> changed.  If we work toward changing the people, we can be prepared for any
> contingency.  It's not easy, but surely it's worth a try?

Maybe if we abolished drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol *first* it *might* be 
possible.

> This is similar to the quote "give man a fish and he will feed his family for
> a day, give him a line and he will feed them for life" or whatever it is.  We
> can keep on giving the fish (taking away physical problems) but the root of
> the problem is still there.  Start working on the root and the physical
> problems will no longer be problems.

Hmm...  If you're gonna throw me off with an analogy like that... OK,
we're still assembling the fishing rod.  Let's just keep giving him fish till 
we're done taking out all the hitches, that way his family won't starve in the 
meantime.  

> > Everyone tries to justify their crime.  The rapists are saying "If rape was
> > legal, they could spend time worrying about murderers and drug users,"
> 
> Actually most rapists are saying "if women don't want to be raped they
> shouldn't wear sexy clothes".  

I always thought they were saying "It's not my fault I can't get any, I'm just 
doing what I have to, to get laid."  And they probably think it should be 
legal, because they can't help it that they're ugly, or bald, or whatever.

> This is a fundamental problem in our society -
> we (men) are aroused by tight clothes or short skirts or whatever.  If, for
> example, nakedness and free sex were the norm, a whole lot of rapists would
> never commit the crime they do.  Yes there would still be the odd few, but it
> would be greatly reduced.

I think there would be more rapists.  Sick people wou.d now be free to do 
whatever they want.

> > the
> > thiefs are saying "If stealing was legal, blah blah".
> 
> Most thieves say "i wouldn't steal if i could afford to feed my family". 

OK, but they still wish it were legal that way they could feed their family in 
a perfectly legit way.  They wouldn't have to worry about getting busted, and 
life would be much better for them.

> Again, a fundamental problem in society.  We don't take enough care of the
> poor and the hungry.  If everyone had a nice house and enough food for their
> whole family 24/7, a whole lot of thieves would never commit the crime they
> do.  Once again, there would certainly be a few who still did, but it would
> be greatly reduced.

Yeah, but who can afford to take care of them?  Those who can, don't.  Those 
who can't, well some of them might but not a whole majority.  I mean, look at 
Bill Gates.  Probably richer than most kings in Europe.  If he took care of 
the poor, that might be a great way to get the DOJ of his back, and it would 
take care of the poor.  But it's not going to happen.
 
> > I think you get the
> > point.
> 
> But do you get my point?
>
> > Drugs are just another crime.
> 
> Yes drugs are a crime.  The question is, should they be a crime?

You could say that about any crime.  Anyone can make points about why 
something or other should be legal.  First drugs, then rape, then burglary, 
then whatever.  The people trying to make everything legal which will 
ultimately ruin society are called liberals.

> By the way, did you know MDMA (Ecstasy) was used as a form of prozac when it
> was discovered?  That LSD was used in small quantities to help people with
> mental disorders?  That morphine which is often used as an anaesthetic is
> virtually the same as heroin and opium?  That marijuana used by people who
> are HIV positive can alleviate their suffering?  Marijuana eases many other
> chronic illnesses too - rheumatism, Parkinson's and more.  

I knew most of this, I had to take morphine when I had a broken arm.  I even 
said that marijuana cures anorexia and the like.  But that doesn't warrant 
over the counter sale.  That doesn't warrant the government selling it either.

> These are medical facts, they're not just things pulled out of the air. 
> It's interesting that the drugs everyone wants to get rid of can actually be
> used to improve the human mental and physical condition.

Yeah, if taken in small doses.  Trusting people to not take too much is 
stupid.  It's like leaving a bucket of candy out on Halloween because you went 
somewhere, and leaving a note that says "We're not here tonight - please only 
take one."  You know someone's going to just take the whole bucket.  And not 
just one person, either.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|